Total Posts:188|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reps vs Dems, Economic Record

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:05:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Results represent what was mostly held at that time. Stock market is measured by Dow Jones adjusted for inflation. These stats are based on half decades and not administrations or congressional reelections.

---

1940-44

President:
Democratic

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Fell

Unemployment:
Fell

1945-49

President:
Democratic

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Rose

Unemployment:
Rose

1950-54

President:
Democratic

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Rose

Unemployment:
Fell

1955-59

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Rose

Unemployment:
Rose

1960-64

President:
Democratic

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Rose

Unemployment:
Fell

1964-69

President:
Democratic

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Fell

Unemployment:
Fell

1970-74

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Fell

Unemployment:
Rose

1975-79

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Fell

Unemployment:
Fell

1980-84

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Republican

Stock market:
Fell

Unemployment:
Rose

1985-89

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Rose

Unemployment:
Fell

1990-94

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Rose

Unemployment:
Rose

1995-99

President:
Democratic

House:
Republican

Senate:
Republican

Stock market:
Rose

Unemployment:
Fell

2000-04

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Fell

Unemployment:
Rose

2005-09

President:
Republican

House:
Democratic

Senate:
Democratic

Stock market:
Fell

Unemployment:
Rose

---

Scoring calculated by 1 point for stock market rise and 1 point of unemployment fall, divided by how many times they appeared, based on the half-decade-oriented stats provided above:

Democratic presidents with Democratic congress: 1.4

Democratic presidents with mixed congress: N/A

Democratic presidents with Republican congress: 2

Republican presidents with Republican congress: N/A

Republican presidents with mixed congress: 0

Republicans presidents with Democratic congress: 0.8

---

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

http://www.tradersnarrative.com...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:10:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Stats taken from a similar thread I posted awhile ago:

In the past 17 Presidential terms , nine were GOP led and eight Democratic. Of nine GOP Presidents, six added to debt/GDP and deficit/GDP as a percent. The only three that did not, had a Democratic House and Senate. Of eight Democrats, each one, reduced deficit/GDP and debt/GDP as a percent.

The president who added a historical 20.7% to the debt has one unique aspect of his presidency " President G. W. Bush had a GOP majority House and Senate.

The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.

From 1978-2011 debt went up 4.2% under Democrats versus 36.4% under the GOP.

Under Republican presidents since 1960, the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion a year. Under Democrats, that figure is $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit has grown by $36 billion. In the average Democratic year it has shrunk by $25 billion.

Since 1978-2011, spending has gone up 9.9% under Democrats versus 12.1% under GOP.

From 1960 to 2005 the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billion a year under Democrats.

Federal spending has increased $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans.

Democratic presidents averaged 3.13% on inflation compared with 3.89 percent for Republicans.

Democratic presidents averaged 5.33% unemployment versus 6.38 percent for Republicans. Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.

No Democratic state has over an 18% poverty rate " six GOP states do.

No Democratic state has over 17% of its population living "food insecure." Four conservative states do.

No Democratic state has over 20% of population living without health insurance but four GOP states do.

The average monthly return on the stock market has been 0.73% under Democrat presidents, almost double the 0.38% under Republicans.

The S&P 500 is up some 74% since Obama took office.

From 1948-2005, income growth rates under Democratic presidents for the 95th, 80th, 60th, 40th and 20th percentiles were, respectively, 2.1%, 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.5% and 2.6%. Compared to Republicans' 1.9%, 1.4%, 1.1%, 0.8%, and 0.4%.

During 20 years of Republican administrations, each year on average the number of Americans living below the poverty line rose by 416,400, while during 20 years of Democratic administrations.

While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance increased. The country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms.

3 million jobs were created under the Bush administration. 23 million under Clinton.

Between 1927 and 1998, the stock market returned about 11% more a year under Democratic presidents and 2% more under Republicans

But, of course, this is all just made up, miscalculated and taken out of context.

---

References:

http://www.addictinginfo.org...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.currydemocrats.org...

http://crooksandliars.com...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:17:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is really interesting.
"But, of course, this is all just made up, miscalculated and taken out of context."
lol
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:23:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Presidential Economic Performance"

Truman: 176

Kennedy: 100

Johnson: 51.5

Eisenhower: 40.7

Ford: 39.5

Clinton: 14.5

Nixon: 2.8

Reagan: -23.2

Obama: -68.9

Bush Sr: -73.1

Carter: -111.4

Bush Jr: 148.4

According to: http://www.bloomberg.com...

Democratic average: 26.95

Republican average: -32.34
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:24:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I challenge anyone to give me a single stat that shows our economy does better in some way under a Republican president or congress.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 2:47:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Among economists, Democrats are 2.5 to 1 to Republicans.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...

Now, I know conservatives have a tendency to hype about the liberal conspiracy of higher education. But I tend to think that devoting your life to studying and practicing a certain field tends to give you a better understanding if it than someone who hasn't.

And that links speaks a lot if you read it.

There is a consensus among economists that government ownership of enterprise is generally bad, yet redistribution and tuning monetary policy is generally good.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:08:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, I hate to point out the obvious here, but most of the economic effects that a president can take credit for with the policies they instituted don't occur until their second term.

Neither presidents, nor congress, can wave a magic want and improve the economy (though, the Cash for Clunkers thing came close to that). Economic policies take time to work, so it could easily be argued that Democrats were riding a wave of positive effects from their GOP predecessors, and GOP presidents were hamstrung with the poor economy left to the by the DNP predecessor.

Kennedy's economic policies were horrible. Nixon's were pretty good. Bush 43's were bad. Unfortunately, with the one small exception, Obama's are bad.

Nixon, Carter, Ford, Bush 41 and Clinton were probably the best presidents, in terms of the long-term health of the economy (sans ushering in the mortgage crisis that Clinton did), in the modern era, despite what the economy was doing during their presidency.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:11:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'cause, seriously...women with a bunch of dough from working for the 1st time in large numbers...men coming back from the army with the same (if only because they had so little to spend it on).

An entire planet in ruins looking to us to supply them with everything they needed to rebuild.

How the heck could Truman fail?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:13:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:00:52 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
75-79 was a democratic prez

Gerald Ford 1974-1977

Jimmy Carter 1977-1981

Most of 1975-1979 was a Republican president.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:19:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:08:17 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Also, I hate to point out the obvious here, but most of the economic effects that a president can take credit for with the policies they instituted don't occur until their second term.

The stats are not based on presidential terms.

Neither presidents, nor congress, can wave a magic want and improve the economy (though, the Cash for Clunkers thing came close to that). Economic policies take time to work, so it could easily be argued that Democrats were riding a wave of positive effects from their GOP predecessors, and GOP presidents were hamstrung with the poor economy left to the by the DNP predecessor.

Is that so? Easily argued, you say? I look forward to your detailed theory of why exactly these facts mean the exact opposite of what they appear to mean.

Kennedy's economic policies were horrible. Nixon's were pretty good. Bush 43's were bad. Unfortunately, with the one small exception, Obama's are bad.

Oh, I see.

Nixon, Carter, Ford, Bush 41 and Clinton were probably the best presidents, in terms of the long-term health of the economy (sans ushering in the mortgage crisis that Clinton did), in the modern era, despite what the economy was doing during their presidency.

That's great. Tell me more.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:30:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason why Democrats tend to handle the economy better than Republicans is the difference between Demand-Side and Supply-Side economics.

Supply-Side economics fails and economists know it. It suggest that the best way to help the economy is to help the supplies(i.e. business owners), which will in turn help everyone else. Whereas, Demand-Side is just the opposite, suggesting that we should help consumers first and foremost, which in turn help suppliers.

Demand-Side economics is best implemented by upholding and improving a certain minimum standard of living or social safety net.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:32:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:30:12 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The reason why Democrats tend to handle the economy better than Republicans is the difference between Demand-Side and Supply-Side economics.

Supply-Side economics fails and economists know it. It suggests that the best way to help the economy is to help the suppliers(i.e. business owners), which will in turn help everyone else. Whereas, Demand-Side is just the opposite, suggesting that we should help consumers first and foremost, which in turn helps suppliers.

Demand-Side economics is best implemented by upholding and improving a certain minimum standard of living or social safety net.

I'm tired.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:39:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But I tend to think that devoting your life to studying and practicing a certain field tends to give you a better understanding if it than someone who hasn't.

The majority of Theology majors are religious people. not Discordians either. I 'spect to see a change on your profile soon.

Actually I don't because logical consistency and Freedo are like peanut butter and napalm.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:42:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Carter was president for like 10 days in '81. He was president 77-80, in essence.

I'll give you Nixon first -

Job Development Act of 1971
- a 10 percent Job Development Credit for 1 year, effective as of today, with a 5 percent credit after August 15, 1972 (some of the best use of tax policy in modern history to stimulate growth that helped in the short term, and was sustainable for the long term)

-repeal the 7 percent excise tax on automobiles (exports, anyone?)

-speed up the personal income tax exemptions scheduled for January 1, 1973, to January i, 1972 (Bush 43 dd something similar, except that's all he dd...with Nixon, it was part of a larger strategy)

-new tax proposals for stimulating research and development of new industries and new techniques to help provide the 20 million new jobs

-a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States for a period of 90 days. (along with the creation of the Council on Cost of Living so that the freeze could end with a strategy for working people to achievable livable wages)

-The biggest and best thing he did, though, was get us off that ridiculous gold standard. The effect of this, positively, on the economy, was huge. Also, gold was no longer artificially deflated to work with that ridiculous monetary standard.

I swear, one of these days, folks are gonna realize that when I state something with confidence, I know what the heck I'm talking about.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:42:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:39:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But I tend to think that devoting your life to studying and practicing a certain field tends to give you a better understanding if it than someone who hasn't.

The majority of Theology majors are religious people. not Discordians either. I 'spect to see a change on your profile soon.

Actually I don't because logical consistency and Freedo are like peanut butter and napalm.

I'm glad you enjoy peanut butter and napalm sandwiches as much as I do, Ragnar. But what does that have to do with the task at hand?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:44:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I snagged that straight from the '71 State of the Union address, if some of what I wrote sounds weird (like "as of today" and such)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 3:53:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The gold standard was already gone, the replacement was a mockery of integrity. At least now we're honest and open that the operating principle of our financial system is the naked gun.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:03:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 3:53:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The gold standard was already gone, the replacement was a mockery of integrity. At least now we're honest and open that the operating principle of our financial system is the naked gun.

So, keeping gold at $35/oz, despite its actual market value being much higher than that, was a good move?

People have used salt for money, shiny pebbles, seashells, and all manner of thing.

Money is valuable because people believe it to be valuable, because seriously, were you gonna build a computer or do anything with the gold for which your money was able to be exchanged other than hoard it or make pretty bobbles out of it?

Gold is put to much better use as NOT money than it was when it was representative of money.

Heck, why not go on the FCOJ standard if we're just gonna tie our money to random commodities.

At least OJ is delicious (and innocent...if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit),.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:12:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:03:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:53:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The gold standard was already gone, the replacement was a mockery of integrity. At least now we're honest and open that the operating principle of our financial system is the naked gun.

So, keeping gold at $35/oz, despite its actual market value being much higher than that, was a good move?
No. If you have a "gold standard" the dollar doesn't have any meaning at all except the gold it represents. You don't have an "exchange rate of gold to dollars" that you "keep" or "don't keep," any paper involved is just a redeemable instrument for a defined amount of gold, what changes based on the market is how much gold a given good is worth.


People have used salt for money, shiny pebbles, seashells, and all manner of thing.

Money is valuable because people believe it to be valuable
Fiat currency is valuable because it is redeemable for the government not putting you in prison for being too productive (amounts needed to redeem escalate with the amount of your production). Not because your belief magically makes it so.

because seriously, were you gonna build a computer or do anything with the gold for which your money was able to be exchanged other than hoard it or make pretty bobbles out of it?
Pretty baubles were things rich people were willing to create other useful things in exchange for. That is why gold was an effective currency-- there were never NOT people desirous of pretty baubles, it was never hard to find them, gold didn't degrade, was fairly easy to transport by the standard of whatever you might buy with it (and could be defined fungibly by redeemable paper instruments if ever transport did become a problem).


Gold is put to much better use as NOT money than it was when it was representative of money.
I dunno, I think integrity and not defining my production in terms set by men who want to seize it are pretty good uses for some of that gold. And made the pretty baubles feel all the more special for those who could afford them ( Almost no matter how rare or common gold becomes, the aesthetics of gold bring your situation to equilibrium, short of post-scarcity in which case who cares anyway.)


Heck, why not go on the FCOJ standard if we're just gonna tie our money to random commodities.

At least OJ is delicious (and innocent...if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit),.
Not sure what the "FC" in that means, but OJ is perishable. One of the functions of money (one that fiat isn't very good at) is that it stores value.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:16:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course, gold DOES have computing applications... but it's good that that's a minor part of the demand for gold, it would be even better for money if it didn't have those. Practical everyday goods are things that get a little messy as money due to low price elasticity. Not a fatal problem but not good and not hard to solve by using luxuries. Ideally of course we have freedom of competing standards so people who disagree with me can prove me wrong by pricing their goods in those terms instead.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:26:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:12:22 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/12/2013 4:03:01 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/12/2013 3:53:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The gold standard was already gone, the replacement was a mockery of integrity. At least now we're honest and open that the operating principle of our financial system is the naked gun.

So, keeping gold at $35/oz, despite its actual market value being much higher than that, was a good move?
No. If you have a "gold standard" the dollar doesn't have any meaning at all except the gold it represents. You don't have an "exchange rate of gold to dollars" that you "keep" or "don't keep," any paper involved is just a redeemable instrument for a defined amount of gold, what changes based on the market is how much gold a given good is worth.

Yes, but he price of gold, despite the market being willing to pay much more for it, must remain completely flat in price. That is a price control which completely destroys a commodity market.

Do I really need to explain why the destruction of a market is BAD for an economy?


People have used salt for money, shiny pebbles, seashells, and all manner of thing.

Money is valuable because people believe it to be valuable
Fiat currency is valuable because it is redeemable for the government not putting you in prison for being too productive (amounts needed to redeem escalate with the amount of your production). Not because your belief magically makes it so.


Really, because last time I checked, I can take a pocket full of money to one of many gold retailers and exchange it for gold, silver, platinum, agates, a new blu-ray player, or any manner of other thing I want.

If gold is what you desire, go exchange your money for gold. There is literally nothing stopping you from doing this. If the retailer doesn't like US Dollars, too bad. The words on the bills make it illegal for them NOT to except it as a means of exchange if they operate in the US.

And, if our money is so worthless, why is it still THE NUMBER ONE CURRENCY TRADED ON THE BLACK MARKET?

Criminals (besides the ones at the FED) think our money is pretty valuable. In fact, you got enough of it on you, I'd bet you could get killed for it.

Why are you the only one who doesn't believe the money has value?

because seriously, were you gonna build a computer or do anything with the gold for which your money was able to be exchanged other than hoard it or make pretty bobbles out of it?
Pretty baubles were things rich people were willing to create other useful things in exchange for. That is why gold was an effective currency-- there were never NOT people desirous of pretty baubles, it was never hard to find them, gold didn't degrade, was fairly easy to transport by the standard of whatever you might buy with it (and could be defined fungibly by redeemable paper instruments if ever transport did become a problem).

Aluminum would be better. It's arbitrary and completely unnecessary.



Gold is put to much better use as NOT money than it was when it was representative of money.
I dunno, I think integrity and not defining my production in terms set by men who want to seize it are pretty good uses for some of that gold. And made the pretty baubles feel all the more special for those who could afford them ( Almost no matter how rare or common gold becomes, the aesthetics of gold bring your situation to equilibrium, short of post-scarcity in which case who cares anyway.)

EVERY country ever on the gold standard has treated it as the garbage idea it is, and they all went on and off it as they pleased, whenever it became necessary.

It is a hindrance to growth. (though, I'm with ya on The FED - they suck, but not because of a metal that doesn't oxidize).



Heck, why not go on the FCOJ standard if we're just gonna tie our money to random commodities.

At least OJ is delicious (and innocent...if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit),.
Not sure what the "FC" in that means, but OJ is perishable. One of the functions of money (one that fiat isn't very good at) is that it stores value.

"Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice" - doesn't anyone else like Trading Places around here except me?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:47:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:26:25 AM, malcolmxy wrote:\
Yes, but he price of gold
You don't have a "price of gold," prices are all in terms of gold, that's why we call it a gold standard.

despite the market being willing to pay much more for it, must remain completely flat in price.
Not true. Today my ounce of gold can buy X boxes of cereal. Tomorrow it can buy x.5. Nothing abhorrent to a gold standard, we just happen to measure it in terms of how much gold-to-the-cereal because that's the medium people are carrying around or carrying around redemption notes for. We don't have to put any price controls on it. Historical practices to the contrary are nothing I advocate or would call a "gold standard."

People have used salt for money, shiny pebbles, seashells, and all manner of thing.

Money is valuable because people believe it to be valuable
Fiat currency is valuable because it is redeemable for the government not putting you in prison for being too productive (amounts needed to redeem escalate with the amount of your production). Not because your belief magically makes it so.


Really, because last time I checked, I can take a pocket full of money to one of many gold retailers and exchange it for gold, silver, platinum, agates, a new blu-ray player, or any manner of other thing I want.
Because those gold retailers need to pay off the mafia, or know people who do and will give them goods for their help.


If gold is what you desire, go exchange your money for gold. There is literally nothing stopping you from doing this.
That wasn't true for a short period in FDR's time.

If the retailer doesn't like US Dollars, too bad. The words on the bills make it illegal for them NOT to except it as a means of exchange if they operate in the US.
And that's evil, and puts the lie to your words about freedom to have gold instead of dollars, at least temporarily and for the retailer (and the retailer will not be able to get an amount of gold for his goods that he determines because the amount the "Dollars" are worth will have changed by the time he gets to the gold retailer after his shop closes.) Although it's not the central thing backing the currency-- the central thing backing the currency is that taxes are only payable in them, not legal tender laws.


And, if our money is so worthless, why is it still THE NUMBER ONE CURRENCY TRADED ON THE BLACK MARKET?
I didn't say it was worthless, I identified the very reasons it was exchanged. You're attacking the arguments of a straw man.

Aluminum would be better. It's arbitrary and completely unnecessary.
Aluminum is cheap for packaging things like soda, hardly a luxury good. I have no idea of its status as a store of value but the "luxury" criterion is a big one. But, again, in a free market, feel free to prove me wrong with a competing standard.

EVERY country ever on the gold standard has treated it as the garbage idea it is, and they all went on and off it as they pleased, whenever it became necessary.
Which means that the gold standard has never been tested.

"Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice" - doesn't anyone else like Trading Places around here except me?
Still not a luxury good. And kinda seasonal, less value in the months when fresh oranges are cheap.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 4:49:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, the black market is being introduced to bitcoins right now. Bitcoins, not the US dollar, are the thing to look at when you're trying to test how far you can get with "Belief" that is founded upon virtually nothing (as opposed to being founded on the threat of violence). The success or failure of that currency in the long run will be a good test of the idea. I'm betting against it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 5:10:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 4:47:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/12/2013 4:26:25 AM, malcolmxy wrote:\
Yes, but he price of gold
You don't have a "price of gold," prices are all in terms of gold, that's why we call it a gold standard.

yes you do, and in the US, it was $35/oz until the gold standard was eliminated.


despite the market being willing to pay much more for it, must remain completely flat in price.
Not true. Today my ounce of gold can buy X boxes of cereal. Tomorrow it can buy x.5. Nothing abhorrent to a gold standard, we just happen to measure it in terms of how much gold-to-the-cereal because that's the medium people are carrying around or carrying around redemption notes for. We don't have to put any price controls on it. Historical practices to the contrary are nothing I advocate or would call a "gold standard."

today, gold (ALL OF IT...IN THE WHOLE WORLD) couldn't cover half our GDP, which is roughly equivalent to M4. everyone gives up half their money for gold (assuming we can amass it ALL)?



People have used salt for money, shiny pebbles, seashells, and all manner of thing.

Money is valuable because people believe it to be valuable
Fiat currency is valuable because it is redeemable for the government not putting you in prison for being too productive (amounts needed to redeem escalate with the amount of your production). Not because your belief magically makes it so.


Really, because last time I checked, I can take a pocket full of money to one of many gold retailers and exchange it for gold, silver, platinum, agates, a new blu-ray player, or any manner of other thing I want.
Because those gold retailers need to pay off the mafia, or know people who do and will give them goods for their help.

Help me out here...lots of mafias out there. which one you talking about (this oughta be good)?



If gold is what you desire, go exchange your money for gold. There is literally nothing stopping you from doing this.
That wasn't true for a short period in FDR's time.

That's right, because the country needed money for war production and to get itself out of a depression, which the gold standard will not allow.


If the retailer doesn't like US Dollars, too bad. The words on the bills make it illegal for them NOT to except it as a means of exchange if they operate in the US.
And that's evil, and puts the lie to your words about freedom to have gold instead of dollars, at least temporarily and for the retailer (and the retailer will not be able to get an amount of gold for his goods that he determines because the amount the "Dollars" are worth will have changed by the time he gets to the gold retailer after his shop closes.) Although it's not the central thing backing the currency-- the central thing backing the currency is that taxes are only payable in them, not legal tender laws.

you can take other mediums of exchange, but a state business license requires retailers to accept it.



And, if our money is so worthless, why is it still THE NUMBER ONE CURRENCY TRADED ON THE BLACK MARKET?
I didn't say it was worthless, I identified the very reasons it was exchanged. You're attacking the arguments of a straw man.


Aluminum would be better. It's arbitrary and completely unnecessary.
Aluminum is cheap for packaging things like soda, hardly a luxury good. I have no idea of its status as a store of value but the "luxury" criterion is a big one. But, again, in a free market, feel free to prove me wrong with a competing standard.

EVERY country ever on the gold standard has treated it as the garbage idea it is, and they all went on and off it as they pleased, whenever it became necessary.
Which means that the gold standard has never been tested.

it's been instituted many times. It fails every time - spectacularly.


"Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice" - doesn't anyone else like Trading Places around here except me?
Still not a luxury good. And kinda seasonal, less value in the months when fresh oranges are cheap.

not if we say it is the new standard. Orange trees wiull pop up everywhere as people try to finally have money that "grows on trees" - which is the problem with gold - money is restricted by gold production. It's stupid, and there's no reason for it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 12:13:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:47:23 AM, FREEDO wrote:
There is a consensus among economists that government ownership of enterprise is generally bad, yet redistribution and tuning monetary policy is generally good.

It's called vulgar political economy. It's evolutionary, not conspiratorial. Those honored with professorships honestly believe what they believe; it's just that they wouldn't have those professorships if they concerned themselves with welfare instead of GDP.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 12:26:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I must say your facts are wrong, there was a GOP House in the late 1940s. Unemployment fell and the stock market rose by large levels in the early 1980s (after the double dip recession).

Also, correlation causation maybe?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 1:16:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does deficit spending calculate into economic performance? Or is it okay to borrow from the grandchildren for the grandparents awesome economy?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2013 1:23:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/12/2013 2:23:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Reagan: -23.2

This is BS. The only reason that Reagan was elected a second time is that he fixed the stagflation that was ruining the economy by increasing interest rates. Whatever source you are using seriously needs to reconsider its bias and/or criteria.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."